Sally Rooney

An exquisitely moving story about grief, love, and family, from the global phenomenon Sally Rooney.

Aside from the fact that they are brothers, Peter and Ivan Koubek seem to have little in common.

Peter is a Dublin lawyer in his thirties—successful, competent, and apparently unassailable. But in the wake of their father’s death, he’s medicating himself to sleep and struggling to manage his relationships with two very different women—his enduring first love, Sylvia, and Naomi, a college student for whom life is one long joke.

Ivan is a twenty-two-year-old competitive chess player. He has always seen himself as socially awkward, a loner, the antithesis of his glib elder brother. Now, in the early weeks of his bereavement, Ivan meets Margaret, an older woman emerging from her own turbulent past, and their lives become rapidly and intensely intertwined.

For two grieving brothers and the people they love, this is a new interlude—a period of desire, despair, and possibility; a chance to find out how much one life might hold inside itself without breaking.

Intermezzo

Helen 

And why not after all. Why not accept wholeheartedly life's offerings. 

nico

Macy HB

Lightly she has to hold the world, lovingly but lightly.

And what if life is just a collection of essentially unrelated experiences? Why does one thing have to follow meaningfully from another ?

Life itself, he thinks, every moment of life, is as precious and beautiful as any game of chess ever played, if only you know how to live.

Life, after all, has not slipped hree of its netting. There is no such life, slipping free: life is itself the netting, holding people in place, making sense of things. It is not possible to tear away the constraints and simply carry on a senseless exist- ence. People, other people, make it impossible. But without other people, there would be no life at all. 

The demands of other people do not dissolve; they only multiply. More and more complex, more difficult. Which is another way. she thinks, of saying: more life, more and more of life.

But then they say one adjusts. The old life of pleasure gone and never returning: accept, or else delude yourself, all the same in the end. The will to live so much stronger than anyone imagines. Like a kind of death, what happened. A kind of death you survive out of politeness, respect for others, out of selfless love. Christ also survived his own death. And was dignified and exalted. 

Had believed once that life must lead to something, all the unresolved conflicts and questions leading on towards some great culmination. Curịously underexamined beliefs like that, underpinning his life, his personality. Irrational attachment to meaning. All very well as far as it goes, the question of constitutionality arises, and so on. Couldn't go to work in the morning if he didn't think something meant something meant something else. But what is it all leading up to. An end without an ending.

Life isn't just talking, you know. […] But what does she mean: life isn't just talking? Love's austere and lonely offices perhaps.

But a person's outward appearance does not defne the boundaries of their internal feelings, Ivan knows. Plain, unappealing people are by no means exempt from the experience of strong passions. 

 Is the word passionate', or is it not, basically an obscene item of vocabulary? No, it isn't. But is it like a small bandage placed over an item of vocabulary that is in fact obscene? Maybe, yes. A word with blood running through it, a red word. In casual conversation it's better to use words that are grey or beige. Where did it come from, then, this word 'passionate? She knows where. From that so firmly suppressed feeling, present all along, that when he looks at her, when he speaks to her, he is addressing not only the superficial but also the deep concealed parts of her personality without meaning to, without knowing how not to. Looking at her, his eyes communicate: I know that you are a person with desires, and so am I, even if I am helpless to do anything about this knowledge. 

I guess you only make good moves, she says. I don't make horrible mistakes, he answers.

 You can drive yourself crazy thinking about different things you could have done in the past. But sometimes I think, actually, I didn't have that much power over my life anyway. I mean, I couldn't give myself a new personality out of nothing. And things just kind of happened to me.

 It can be exploitative to give money; also to take it. Money overall a very exploitative substance, creating it seems fresh kinds of exploitation in every form of relationality through which it passes. Greasing with exploitation the wheels of human interaction generally. 

 I wish I was dead. Same as everyone sometimes surely. ldea occurs, that is. Remembering something embarrassing you did years ago and abruptly you think: that's it. I'm going to kill myself. Except in his case, the embarrassing thing is his life. Doesn't mean he wants to really. Or even if he does, not as if he would do it. Just to think, or not even think, but to overhear the words inside his own head. Strange relief like a catch released: I wish. Deepest and most fnal of desires. omething bitter in it too, luxuriously bitter. yes. And why not. Why doesn'the, that is, if the idea is so consoling. Oh, for other people, of course: to protect them. Other people prefer you to suffer.

Jesus is easy to love and God much harder. Jesus also has his own reality, his place in history whereas God is like a dim point of light in a dark room, visible only as long as you don't try to look directly. 

There is more to life than great chess. Okay. great chess is still a part of life, and it can be a very big part, very intense, satisfying, and pleasant to dwell on in the mind's eye: but nonetheless, life contains many things. Life itself, he thinks, every moment of life, is as precious and beautiful as any game of chess ever played, if only you know how to live. 

Yes, the world makes room for goodness and decency, he thinks: and the task of life is to show goodness to others, not to complain about their failings. 

Life, after all, has not slipped free of its netting. There is no such life, slipping free: life is itself the netting, holding people in place, making sense of things. It is not possible to tear away the constraints and simply carry on a senseless existence. People, other people, make it impossible. But without other people, there would be no life at all. Judgement, reproval, disappointment, contlict: these are the means by which people remain connected to one another. 

 Well, if that's suffering, he thinks, let me suffer. Yes. To love whoever I have left. And if ever I lose someone, let me descend into a futile and prolonged rage, yes, despair, wanting to break things, furniture, appliances, wanting to get into fights, to seream, to walk in front of a bus, yes. Let me suffer, please. To love just these few people, to know myself capable of that, I would suffer every day of my life.

- really moved me. a lot of what these characters went through reminded me of my own family in different ways

- the prose left me totally floored after basically every other page. there was something magical to find every time i re-opened the book

- horribly sad. i feel like crying just by looking back and thinking about what half the characters went through

- re: the themes i really enjoyed the early chapters from peter’s pov thinking about what makes life meaningful, especially with how that circled back to margaret’s personal story as well

- wonderful and depressing and heartwarming. loved it

- really moved me. a lot of what these characters went through reminded me of my own family in different ways

- the prose left me totally floored after basically every other page. there was something magical to find every time i re-opened the book

- horribly sad. i feel like crying just by looking back and thinking about what half the characters went through

- re: the themes i really enjoyed the early chapters from peter’s pov thinking about what makes life meaningful, especially with how that circled back to margaret’s personal story as well

- wonderful and depressing and heartwarming. loved it

Never cease to amaze me how proficient this book in rage baiting me. Every chapter of it would be me saying wow what an asshole and even in the end hold zero accountability of their action. 

For the love of God please just get a therapy, everyone, all of you.

Been thinking about dropping this book at the first two chapter but here I am. I'm never a fan of Rooney writing style since reading normal people, now even giving it another chance I'm still not, sometimes everything is just a jumbled mess and dizzying it hard to follow.

The good factor of this book is Peter and Ivan messy relationship and by that Peter situation as a first born child hit a little bit too close to home, the temper, thinking of never enough, always apologizing, the suppressing emotion because doesn't want people to be awkward and uncomfortable, and just wanted to be loved. All in all, Rooney is actually have a way in describing and depicting complex emotion and feeling so well.

But hey friendly reminder, it is not a justification for your action at all! hope this helps!

Never cease to amaze me how proficient this book in rage baiting me. Every chapter of it would be me saying wow what an asshole and even in the end hold zero accountability of their action. 

For the love of God please just get a therapy, everyone, all of you.

Been thinking about dropping this book at the first two chapter but here I am. I'm never a fan of Rooney writing style since reading normal people, now even giving it another chance I'm still not, sometimes everything is just a jumbled mess and dizzying it hard to follow.

The good factor of this book is Peter and Ivan messy relationship and by that Peter situation as a first born child hit a little bit too close to home, the temper, thinking of never enough, always apologizing, the suppressing emotion because doesn't want people to be awkward and uncomfortable, and just wanted to be loved. All in all, Rooney is actually have a way in describing and depicting complex emotion and feeling so well.

But hey friendly reminder, it is not a justification for your action at all! hope this helps!

a tale of two brothers. simple and easy to read, with some interesting observations about grief, religion, and relationships. I only wish the female characters were seen from more than just the male perspective and that some concepts were more fully expressed. 

Mic Carter

I actually really really liked this, I just cant give it 5 stars because i want Naomi's POV so bad, like i truly believe that not including Naomi's point of view is the fumble of a life time. It would've tied in the book all around with it's messaging: Juxtaposing Peter and Ivan whilst also showing that they're inherently the same. It especially doesn't make sense to me since we have Margret's perspective, while this lack could show how Peter doesn't think of her as an individual, that doesn't exactly make sense, because then, we would have Sylvia's. 

 I can see why people don't particularly like this, It's definitely a weird writing style compared to other authors, but if you like Sally Rooney's work, you'll like it. It has the hallmark of her writing (deep character studies, no quotation marks, and different dynamics and how they work together). I think this had such a good way of tying together despite the fact I mentioned before. And honestly, I think compared to Normal People it was a lot easier to read (though maybe that's because I already read normal people and was familiarized with the writing) and more entertaining than normal people. I felt way more immersed this time around. 

Anyway, although there is no denying that Peter is a worse overall person, I found his perspective way more interesting than Ivan's or Margaret's. Like his introspective was interesting, and contrary to what a lot of people believed I didn't find them slow nor boring. I was looking forward to them and bummed out whenever it changed. Plus I think the sentence type used for his chapters were very reminiscent of what being overwhelmed or having a panic attack or whatever else he had going on felt like. They were very hazed and quick and read like being out of breath. Referring to Naomi as "the other" was quite foul. She was truly having a full brat summer (well autumn) with every emotion on that album.

 At the end of the day though, he was a better brother. Because Ivan was doing way too much and being dramatic. Which characteristically makes sense because he's younger, but, he isn't a teenager, he's a grown man acting like this. Like Peter was definitely in the wrong at most points (especially as the readers know there is more underlying that Ivan doesn't know) BUT Ivan never allows peter to apologize. 

And I think if the roles were reversed (meaning if the character traits stayed exactly the same just the ages were swapped) Ivan would've been a lot crueler. Maybe not physically, but he'd be more closed off and wouldn't have taken the time of day to reach out in the first place. Because whilst Peter has his own messed up unconditional love towards Ivan, while Ivan doesn't really see it, it's still apparent, he just doesn't want to acknowledge it. 

Actually, I think that's a strong characteristic of Peter that stays throughout the book. He's at least there, he might act like an ass but at the end of the day for each character in the novel, he showed up for, tried to help them out a little, in the way he can.

But Ivan doesn't do that, we don't see some distinct moral code in him at all. We see it tested through flashbacks, in fits of rage, and sort of reconciled, but it's never built into the narrative, which is why I can't 100% back him as a character (although he's sweet), like the only common denominator of a characteristic that stays with him is the fact that he immediately lashes out when he's disagreed with. 

And yk what, back to Peter, I would've 100% crashed out and completely changed if I had something life changing happen to me and I'm trying to get help and just some consolation about it and I get walked out on. Not even a single word. I'd hold some grudge, and Peter doesn't! He lit only called him weird. 

Absolute nightmare rotation: Reading this & watching Aftersun

melanie

I actually really really liked this, I just cant give it 5 stars because i want Naomi's POV so bad, like i truly believe that not including Naomi's point of view is the fumble of a life time. It would've tied in the book all around with it's messaging: Juxtaposing Peter and Ivan whilst also showing that they're inherently the same. It especially doesn't make sense to me since we have Margret's perspective, while this lack could show how Peter doesn't think of her as an individual, that doesn't exactly make sense, because then, we would have Sylvia's. 

 I can see why people don't particularly like this, It's definitely a weird writing style compared to other authors, but if you like Sally Rooney's work, you'll like it. It has the hallmark of her writing (deep character studies, no quotation marks, and different dynamics and how they work together). I think this had such a good way of tying together despite the fact I mentioned before. And honestly, I think compared to Normal People it was a lot easier to read (though maybe that's because I already read normal people and was familiarized with the writing) and more entertaining than normal people. I felt way more immersed this time around. 

Anyway, although there is no denying that Peter is a worse overall person, I found his perspective way more interesting than Ivan's or Margaret's. Like his introspective was interesting, and contrary to what a lot of people believed I didn't find them slow nor boring. I was looking forward to them and bummed out whenever it changed. Plus I think the sentence type used for his chapters were very reminiscent of what being overwhelmed or having a panic attack or whatever else he had going on felt like. They were very hazed and quick and read like being out of breath. Referring to Naomi as "the other" was quite foul. She was truly having a full brat summer (well autumn) with every emotion on that album.

 At the end of the day though, he was a better brother. Because Ivan was doing way too much and being dramatic. Which characteristically makes sense because he's younger, but, he isn't a teenager, he's a grown man acting like this. Like Peter was definitely in the wrong at most points (especially as the readers know there is more underlying that Ivan doesn't know) BUT Ivan never allows peter to apologize. 

And I think if the roles were reversed (meaning if the character traits stayed exactly the same just the ages were swapped) Ivan would've been a lot crueler. Maybe not physically, but he'd be more closed off and wouldn't have taken the time of day to reach out in the first place. Because whilst Peter has his own messed up unconditional love towards Ivan, while Ivan doesn't really see it, it's still apparent, he just doesn't want to acknowledge it. 

Actually, I think that's a strong characteristic of Peter that stays throughout the book. He's at least there, he might act like an ass but at the end of the day for each character in the novel, he showed up for, tried to help them out a little, in the way he can.

But Ivan doesn't do that, we don't see some distinct moral code in him at all. We see it tested through flashbacks, in fits of rage, and sort of reconciled, but it's never built into the narrative, which is why I can't 100% back him as a character (although he's sweet), like the only common denominator of a characteristic that stays with him is the fact that he immediately lashes out when he's disagreed with. 

And yk what, back to Peter, I would've 100% crashed out and completely changed if I had something life changing happen to me and I'm trying to get help and just some consolation about it and I get walked out on. Not even a single word. I'd hold some grudge, and Peter doesn't! He lit only called him weird. 

Absolute nightmare rotation: Reading this & watching Aftersun

For a long time reading this, I dreaded Peter’s POV but have since found an appreciation for the prose style change that Rooney boldly uses. We go on living!!

Brynn Sklar

I was slightly let down by this book, which hurts me to say. I have seen so many reviews and heard so many friends and acquaintances talk about how they enjoyed this book, I think it set my expectations too high.

The plot on paper was extremely interesting to me, as I am a huge fan of novels that delve into and explore familial relationships. What disappointed me, though, is that there was what felt like a lack of that. I found that the book focused much more on the romantic dynamics and relationships Ivan and Peter had with their respective love interests rather than the relationship they had with each other, which I believed was going to be the main focus of the novel.

The parts that did explore Ivan and Peter's relationship, however, were the highlights of this book for me. I love how they are relatively similar, and yet so much has happened that they find themselves so distant. I love the journey they went through, and I love how they came back together. I found the conflicting feelings of both loving and hating a brother very realistic, and very relatable as someone who has had a tumultuous relationship with a brother in the past.

Contrary to other reviews, I actually enjoyed the writing style in the first few chapters. I found it easy to get into, and even now after finishing the book, Sally Rooney's style of writing is what will keep me reading her work. In terms of Intermezzo's writing specifically, I have to say I found it dragging at several points. I found the sex scenes contributed nothing to an otherwise constantly advancing novel, and whilst I believe them to be there to show relationship dynamics, this was showcased much better in any other scene that focused on romantic partnerships.

The character development was also something I found very interesting, and individually I enjoyed learning about the characters. I have no notes on Ivan and Margaret as a couple, I absolutely adored every second of their scenes. What I did not enjoy as much, though, is the dynamic between Peter, Sylvia and Naomi. I found it very uncomfortable, especially towards the end of the second part where Peter says something about wanting to get Naomi pregnant and ruin her life. Just a generally uncomfortable thing, and it definitely put me off and left a stain on my enjoyment of the book.

I also did not enjoy the final dynamic between the three of them, as I generally find a three-way relationship (or an even higher number) to be odd. It is just not something I am comfortable with in my every day life, and I was not comfortable with that being the conclusion of their relationship.

On the other hand, I loved the way the story wrapped up Ivan's relationships with Peter and with Margaret. I thought his storyline was done it's due justice, and it was wonderful that his story ended the way it did.

Overall a decent book, however with certain events and the story dragging, as well as just my general feeling of being underwhelmed, I cannot mark it as high as I would have liked to.

iris may

I was slightly let down by this book, which hurts me to say. I have seen so many reviews and heard so many friends and acquaintances talk about how they enjoyed this book, I think it set my expectations too high.

The plot on paper was extremely interesting to me, as I am a huge fan of novels that delve into and explore familial relationships. What disappointed me, though, is that there was what felt like a lack of that. I found that the book focused much more on the romantic dynamics and relationships Ivan and Peter had with their respective love interests rather than the relationship they had with each other, which I believed was going to be the main focus of the novel.

The parts that did explore Ivan and Peter's relationship, however, were the highlights of this book for me. I love how they are relatively similar, and yet so much has happened that they find themselves so distant. I love the journey they went through, and I love how they came back together. I found the conflicting feelings of both loving and hating a brother very realistic, and very relatable as someone who has had a tumultuous relationship with a brother in the past.

Contrary to other reviews, I actually enjoyed the writing style in the first few chapters. I found it easy to get into, and even now after finishing the book, Sally Rooney's style of writing is what will keep me reading her work. In terms of Intermezzo's writing specifically, I have to say I found it dragging at several points. I found the sex scenes contributed nothing to an otherwise constantly advancing novel, and whilst I believe them to be there to show relationship dynamics, this was showcased much better in any other scene that focused on romantic partnerships.

The character development was also something I found very interesting, and individually I enjoyed learning about the characters. I have no notes on Ivan and Margaret as a couple, I absolutely adored every second of their scenes. What I did not enjoy as much, though, is the dynamic between Peter, Sylvia and Naomi. I found it very uncomfortable, especially towards the end of the second part where Peter says something about wanting to get Naomi pregnant and ruin her life. Just a generally uncomfortable thing, and it definitely put me off and left a stain on my enjoyment of the book.

I also did not enjoy the final dynamic between the three of them, as I generally find a three-way relationship (or an even higher number) to be odd. It is just not something I am comfortable with in my every day life, and I was not comfortable with that being the conclusion of their relationship.

On the other hand, I loved the way the story wrapped up Ivan's relationships with Peter and with Margaret. I thought his storyline was done it's due justice, and it was wonderful that his story ended the way it did.

Overall a decent book, however with certain events and the story dragging, as well as just my general feeling of being underwhelmed, I cannot mark it as high as I would have liked to.

Stella

Really enjoyed the lengthy inner dialogue(s) of this one. The little depictions of romantic or sibling relationships, the slowness/ the lack of anything really happening/ disorganization of non-monogamy is so reminiscent to me of the style of writing Donna Tart uses to portray a period of time that lasts forever in the Goldfinch. Pretty slow and sophisticated read. A little sad of course, to be expected with Sally Rooney. I’ve heard people either love or hate this book- to me, it’s tender, it’s angry, it’s grieving and it’s sort of the essence of our human minds’ pandering about. The ending was “meh” to me but perhaps there’s no real conclusion with a book as realistic as this. Unusually realistic and also hallmark-y all at once. 

Lily Dendy

I don’t love Rooney’s writing style but I can appreciate the effect of it. I liked the dynamic captured between the brothers after such a devastating loss. Favorite character was Naomi, she deserved better. 

Mehul Sharma

“These days, yesterday, last night, this morning, I’ve wanted everything. 217”

Arie P

“These days, yesterday, last night, this morning, I’ve wanted everything. 217”

Rooney does romance like no one else.

part 1 was so boring i almost stopped reading but im glad i hung on

Cici Pearson

mildly hard to get into but overall a good exploration of weird sibling relationships and how grief forces people apart and together at the same time

enjoyed the switches in perspective, and found it interesting that margaret was a prominent character with her own chapters but naomi and sylvia did not - keeping us from being able to see their perspectives outside of peter's projections. 

camille paradis

mildly hard to get into but overall a good exploration of weird sibling relationships and how grief forces people apart and together at the same time

enjoyed the switches in perspective, and found it interesting that margaret was a prominent character with her own chapters but naomi and sylvia did not - keeping us from being able to see their perspectives outside of peter's projections. 

to be honest i think since finishing this book the conversations and words and exchanges within it that echoes ones i’ve said, or been said to me, or will be said by me or to me in future has destabilised me some. rippled into my being in a quieter way than normal people did in 2020 upon first read, when i was so struck by how so much unsaid between two people create gorges between them, and then had the time to wallow in bed for days reflecting upon how i have lived, and will live in this knowing put into words. this time it is pinpricks on my nail beds and behind my ear and the small of my back and my throat. just whenever, wherever. oh well. both ivan and peter. maybe more of the latter. 

aisha

this was so exhausting in the way novels can only be when it is evenly divided into different perspectives and the only one you care about is doing nothing to make the load lighter on you 😭

if we isolate the technical writing and the character exploration in 

it is unequivocally sally rooney’s best novel so far. no contest, no hesitation. an author of her renown could probably keep writing 

over and over again, in different iterations, and i consider it a gift that she knows what she wants to write and still finds different ways to explore what are, essentially, the same themes. there will perhaps never be a sally rooney novel that isn’t a study in being simply one person existing within a network of people, all these petit bourgeoisie

whose lives are padded by the complexity of attraction, chronic pain, winks of violence, power dynamics in sex, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it bisexuality, love at first debate, and all the many open-ended questions an irish twenty-something living the same life as everyone else can ask about love, art, truth, religion, and the world. it’s the almost painful & boring ordinariness of it all, even at its most “intelligent,” that makes rooney’s tricks seem like magic, and the rest relies on how her characters are surrounded by what brandon taylor’s 

 calls “large networks of friendships, neighbors, families, family friends, coworkers, old lovers, roommates [...] constantly texting and emailing and chatting on the phone, running into so-and-so from down the way, talking about people and things that never show up on the page directly but that conjure a whole world at great depth.”

with five characters making up the central dynamics of 

however, it also carries rooney’s biggest main cast so far, and what ends up being highlighted by the perpetual existing-in-community that her characters experience is that there isn’t really much interpersonal clashing happening between characters who despite their differences 

 to continue being with each other. it’s not that the premises aren’t compelling to me, and if anything there was an overabundance of interesting dynamics here: the brothers and their not-love not-hate, unhelped by parents whose joint non-presence even after death and remarriage constitutes its own grief, only cushioned somehow by the tenderness of knowing you have wronged and been wronged by family and none of it matters bc you will always be bound; the fact that ivan & peter are ten years apart and are each dating women that are the other’s age; the class discrepancy between peter and naomi, and what survival counts for either of them, especially with sylvia in the mix, unable to contend with pain and loss, her own let alone anyone else’s. there are a lot fun stuff happening here! and so the absence is more felt when nothing really remarkable happens between all these active chemical components. they do nudge each other like one of those race kart games in amusement parks, sometimes with more force, sometimes with less. but there’s no real burst of activity that earns the amount of internal conflict these characters experience around and about each other, and when the novel finally ends, it seems merely a precursor to the real heart of everything these five people have going on. 

 perhaps words it best in saying that “

is artificially brought to an end at the precise moment where it ought to begin.” 

at one point, the narration remarks that the concepts of profit and commodity allows for the wheels of human interaction to be “greased” by exploitation. what does it say about 

that its five characters arrive at the end of the book having smoothened out what minute friction there was between them in the first place?

if i am failing to grasp what i felt about this book and am relying too much on those of others, then i’ll blame it partly on the fact that the main characters of 

do the same. they rely on chess metaphors and wittgensteinian examinations of semantics and etymology, and have their thoughts interrupted with biblical passages and sparks of quotes that approximate what they feel and believe. it’s hard for me not to feel for them bc of this, and the biggest surprise of the book isn’t that 

is still the undefeated champion of my personal rooney olympics, but that it was peter and not ivan i felt more tenderness for. peter, who was only reaching the height of his personal horrors, all of them unaddressed, by the book’s end. peter, who’s really quite unlikeable and unjustified in the burdens he carries, yet suffuses the prose with texture that his brother’s pov does not. peter, who’s not really a person, whose conflict couldn’t appear more contrived, denied by his author even the basic everyday hardship of having to make a choice. peter, who’s only interesting bc sylvia and naomi were the most compelling things about him. peter, who thought of love and intimacy as the grace of god. peter, whose grief had at times the kind of clarity i expected from the novel as a whole, only to be drowned in a sea of philosophizing that i can’t help but allow him bc it was as if he made 

rooney’s dialogue is as swift and sharp as ever, her characterization indulgent and human in all the best ways, and her eye for description shining in particular in the prose style of this novel. she’s only gotten more fluid and assured with time, and even in my exhaustion, i never once felt the novel was overwritten. it 

 have been shorter, but i believe in its choice for prose and style. the tenderness i felt for the novel as a whole was real. again, it goes a long way that rooney never serves the same dish in the same way. even when she asks the same questions, she finds different paths towards the answers she wants, and it brings a kind of joy specific to watching someone else’s intellectual exercise succeed. i just wish this one had been equally emotional for me as well.

this was so exhausting in the way novels can only be when it is evenly divided into different perspectives and the only one you care about is doing nothing to make the load lighter on you 😭

if we isolate the technical writing and the character exploration in intermezzo, it is unequivocally sally rooney’s best novel so far. no contest, no hesitation. an author of her renown could probably keep writing normal people over and over again, in different iterations, and i consider it a gift that she knows what she wants to write and still finds different ways to explore what are, essentially, the same themes. there will perhaps never be a sally rooney novel that isn’t a study in being simply one person existing within a network of people, all these petit bourgeoisie whose lives are padded by the complexity of attraction, chronic pain, winks of violence, power dynamics in sex, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it bisexuality, love at first debate, and all the many open-ended questions an irish twenty-something living the same life as everyone else can ask about love, art, truth, religion, and the world. it’s the almost painful & boring ordinariness of it all, even at its most “intelligent,” that makes rooney’s tricks seem like magic, and the rest relies on how her characters are surrounded by what brandon taylor’s review calls “large networks of friendships, neighbors, families, family friends, coworkers, old lovers, roommates [...] constantly texting and emailing and chatting on the phone, running into so-and-so from down the way, talking about people and things that never show up on the page directly but that conjure a whole world at great depth.”

with five characters making up the central dynamics of intermezzo, however, it also carries rooney’s biggest main cast so far, and what ends up being highlighted by the perpetual existing-in-community that her characters experience is that there isn’t really much interpersonal clashing happening between characters who despite their differences have to continue being with each other. it’s not that the premises aren’t compelling to me, and if anything there was an overabundance of interesting dynamics here: the brothers and their not-love not-hate, unhelped by parents whose joint non-presence even after death and remarriage constitutes its own grief, only cushioned somehow by the tenderness of knowing you have wronged and been wronged by family and none of it matters bc you will always be bound; the fact that ivan & peter are ten years apart and are each dating women that are the other’s age; the class discrepancy between peter and naomi, and what survival counts for either of them, especially with sylvia in the mix, unable to contend with pain and loss, her own let alone anyone else’s. there are a lot fun stuff happening here! and so the absence is more felt when nothing really remarkable happens between all these active chemical components. they do nudge each other like one of those race kart games in amusement parks, sometimes with more force, sometimes with less. but there’s no real burst of activity that earns the amount of internal conflict these characters experience around and about each other, and when the novel finally ends, it seems merely a precursor to the real heart of everything these five people have going on. ryan ruby perhaps words it best in saying that “intermezzo is artificially brought to an end at the precise moment where it ought to begin.” 

at one point, the narration remarks that the concepts of profit and commodity allows for the wheels of human interaction to be “greased” by exploitation. what does it say about intermezzo, that its five characters arrive at the end of the book having smoothened out what minute friction there was between them in the first place?

if i am failing to grasp what i felt about this book and am relying too much on those of others, then i’ll blame it partly on the fact that the main characters of intermezzo do the same. they rely on chess metaphors and wittgensteinian examinations of semantics and etymology, and have their thoughts interrupted with biblical passages and sparks of quotes that approximate what they feel and believe. it’s hard for me not to feel for them bc of this, and the biggest surprise of the book isn’t that conversations with friends is still the undefeated champion of my personal rooney olympics, but that it was peter and not ivan i felt more tenderness for. peter, who was only reaching the height of his personal horrors, all of them unaddressed, by the book’s end. peter, who’s really quite unlikeable and unjustified in the burdens he carries, yet suffuses the prose with texture that his brother’s pov does not. peter, who’s not really a person, whose conflict couldn’t appear more contrived, denied by his author even the basic everyday hardship of having to make a choice. peter, who’s only interesting bc sylvia and naomi were the most compelling things about him. peter, who thought of love and intimacy as the grace of god. peter, whose grief had at times the kind of clarity i expected from the novel as a whole, only to be drowned in a sea of philosophizing that i can’t help but allow him bc it was as if he made intermezzo another novel altogether. 

i do think there’s brilliance here. rooney’s dialogue is as swift and sharp as ever, her characterization indulgent and human in all the best ways, and her eye for description shining in particular in the prose style of this novel. she’s only gotten more fluid and assured with time, and even in my exhaustion, i never once felt the novel was overwritten. it could have been shorter, but i believe in its choice for prose and style. the tenderness i felt for the novel as a whole was real. again, it goes a long way that rooney never serves the same dish in the same way. even when she asks the same questions, she finds different paths towards the answers she wants, and it brings a kind of joy specific to watching someone else’s intellectual exercise succeed. i just wish this one had been equally emotional for me as well.

First time not binging a Sally Rooney book, and one of the most pleasurable reading experiences I’ve ever had.

Margo Koss

abi a

Dreadfully boring, an absolute slog to get through. 

Karmen 

It's a great reflection on human relationships and also the psychological response to grief. 

Marie Arnaudon

love her writing and how complicated the characters are. Confused about the throuple situation lol - but lovely nonetheless 

Adele Etheridge Woodson

Aside from the fact that they are brothers, Peter and Ivan Koubek seem to have little in common.
Peter is a Dublin lawyer in his thirties - successful, competent and apparently unassailable. But in the wake of their father's death, he's medicating himself to sleep and struggling to manage his relationships with two very different women - his enduring first love Sylvia, and Naomi, a college student for whom life is one long joke.

Ivan is a twenty-two-year-old competitive chess player. He has always seen himself as socially awkward, a loner, the antithesis of his glib elder brother. Now, in the early weeks of his bereavement, Ivan meets Margaret, an older woman emerging from her own turbulent past, and their lives become rapidly and intensely intertwined.

For two grieving brothers and the people they love, this is a new interlude - a period of desire, despair and possibility - a chance to find out how much one life might hold inside itself without breaking.